Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Titan on July 02, 2009, 02:19:15 pm
-
I was waiting for my mom to do some errands at target, so I decided to go look at the PC games aisle. On the little shelf facing out towards the aisle with all the new stuff, I saw galactic adventures. Then I saw the price: 30. Bloody. Dollars. They're making us pay 30 dollars for something that should have been in the original game? And then I ranted for a few minutes about Creepy and Cute.
So I then actually entered the PC aisle. And noticed that about a 5ft by 4ft section of shelf was occupied by Sims two expansions. At least 10 different ones. Every one was 20 dollars.
That's just frikkin pointless. And from what EA said, that's what they're going to do to spore.
-
Welcome to EA's marketting model.
-
Goddamn I wish I hadn't bought that game. There are 17 or 18 Sims 2 games all told.
-
I used to like the Sims 2 but got put off for the same reason, there comes a stage where you think 'enough is enough', besides, do they think we have no better use for our hard-drive space?
-
It's kind of the non-sports equivalent of releasing a new Madden/Tiger Woods/what have you game every single year. Things that should rightly be in a patch wind up costing you nearly full price.
-
Money grubbing is becoming ever more rampant and it's not just EA anymore... just look at Blizzard and their splendid idea to sell 3 Starcraft 2 campaigns as seperate games at full price LOL.
And there is only one way to deal with corporate greed: do not buy their crap anymore.
-
Yeah but fan-whores and little children will still buy it.
-
Money grubbing is becoming ever more rampant and it's not just EA anymore... just look at Blizzard and their splendid idea to sell 3 Starcraft 2 campaigns as seperate games at full price LOL.
And there is only one way to deal with corporate greed: do not buy their crap anymore.
Agreed.
-
Money grubbing is becoming ever more rampant and it's not just EA anymore... just look at Blizzard and their splendid idea to sell 3 Starcraft 2 campaigns as seperate games at full price LOL.
But each campaign is going to be the same length as all three campaigns from the first game combined. So that's not really a good comparison.
-
Better example for Blizzard is the fact you have to pay for expansions to a game that you are already paying them monthly for. I never ceased to be amazed that they get away with that...
-
But each campaign is going to be the same length as all three campaigns from the first game combined. So that's not really a good comparison.
You mean... like in an expansion? ;)
Another "fully featured campaign" for a main game you already bought.... that is what people usually call an "expansion" and they don't sell them at full price. "They" being other companies than Blizzard lol.
Even if these 3 campaigns really are "gods gift to gamers" (i'm saving my real laughs for after release just in case), then they are still overcharging for them. Period. 3 fully featured campaigns != 3 games.
A company interested in offering a fair deal might have sold the first game at full price and offered any other "campaigns" you want to buy at expansion/half price. Several companies propably would simply have stated that their game will be "much more extensive than any other" and not charged anything extra at all. Blizzard however is sick with their success of World of Warcraft. It's been said before: They could likely sell crap in a can and people would still buy it. This... just shows that Blizzard "heard" of that notion too. They appear to be pretty much convinced people will by *anything* they make and that is why they are milking as hard as they think they can.
Not rocket science. Blizzard has gotten greedy after WoW. Simple as that.
I can also already see them conveniently "adding up" all sales from Starcraft 2 campaigns and announce record sales for *Starcraft 2* - from all the kiddies buying the game 3 times. Kinda sad eh? But don't say you don't see it coming. If this works out they propably not gonna bother with tricks anymore for their next game and just charge 100$ right away. lol ;)
Some companies make their products with a passion and reap the rewards. Blizzard has been such a company some long time ago. Other companies are more interested in "making money" and "making products" has sort of become a somewhat inconvenient necessity. That would be EA. And then there are companies who don't even bother with products anymore and rather try to make money directly. That would be the investment banks that are currently ruining our economy ;)
Starcraft 2... now this is Blizzard moving closer to "EA" style companies. For a critical customer who actually cares from "whom" he buys, this move is extremely disappointing.
I certainly won't be supporting them with their greed. I won't be buying it at release and if... IF i buy it at all then that will be for 5 bucks in the bargain bin. I'm not in a hurry. ;)
There's too many games to play anyways and several titles i am looking forward to... even, or especially from companies that i will gladly support by paying full price at release.
As far as Spore goes... i stayed far away from that after reading about the copy protection idiocy that EA tried to pull and seeing what their future plans are for the game i'm quite glad i stayed away, even if it was for a different reason lol.
-
Has there been any solid confirmation that Blizzard is going to be charging a full $50 for each individual Starcraft II release? I can't remember hearing anything about it either way.
-
Starcraft 2... now this is Blizzard moving closer to "EA" style companies. For a critical customer who actually cares from "whom" he buys, this move is extremely disappointing.
I certainly won't be supporting them with their greed. I won't be buying it at release and if... IF i buy it at all then that will be for 5 bucks in the bargain bin. I'm not in a hurry. ;)
There's too many games to play anyways and several titles i am looking forward to... even, or especially from companies that i will gladly support by paying full price at release.
No, moving to EA's style is releasing five bug-swarmed games in a year then patching them once every eight months, twice. :P
Except for RA3, which they've made like 13 patches for it already and each one introduces another game-breaking bug while at the same time fixing the previous bug they "cleverly" put into the game. :nod:
-
Their development time is too fast. They can crank out titles that are almost top quality in half the time as everyone else...but they don't have the staying power either in sales or in replay value and every new title seems to get slightly worse.
-
Who are you referring to?
-
I used to like the Sims 2 but got put off for the same reason, there comes a stage where you think 'enough is enough', besides, do they think we have no better use for our hard-drive space?
clearly not, as the model appears to work. 'cos wouldn't they drop it if it didn't work ? :doubt:
-
You can't beat EA. EA is the undisputed emperor of marketing. Resistance is futile.
On the other hand, you can just ignore their **** and live a better life.
-
Ok, I have to admit I bought Galactic Adventures. Just because I was bored :p
I never finished 30 min. on the space age the first go around so I thought it would be fun. I enjoy doing missions especially some of the user made content. Although some are just VERY... stupid.
But going into to some random mission and seeing Tom Servo in the background was very funny. It's actually really fun.
-
I have to say I'm gravely disappointed with The Sims 3's (Lack of) facial customization capability.
Without the ability to fine-tune specific areas of their face I can't make any of the people I had on The Sims 2, especially without the hidden dev slides used with testingCheatsEnabled and Ctrl (Or was it Alt?) + N.
Hell with those I was able to make 72 individual people.
-
It'll be in an expansion pack.
-
Who are you referring to?
Um....EA....the publishers of Sims 2, Spore, and RA3.
-
It'll be in an expansion pack.
Which is one of the reasons I'm waiting....
I'm still enjoying playing sims 2 from time to time and see no reason to "upgrade" to the latest pudding.
-
Who are you referring to?
Um....EA....the publishers of Sims 2, Spore, and RA3.
Basically half the games you see will have EA on it...
-
On WoW:
Each expansion has increased the level cap by 10, adds a whole new continent (the game shipped with two, that's nothing to laugh at), added some game-changing element (TBC added flying mounts and heroic dungeons, WotLK added vehicles and revolutionized questing), added a PvP battleground (a new one is coming out next content patch, as well), and several new spells for each class (and often in doing so completely changing class mechanics). And, in WotLK's case, adding a whole new class. They can only add more dungeons for so long before they have to extend the level cap and add new areas; eight tiers of raid advancement would be ridiculous to pack into the space that shipped with WoW. The expansions are completely worth it, if not necessary to have been made. And before any of you bash the game's quality... I think the 11 million active subscriptions speak for themselves. To surmise, a Sims expansion pack or stuff pack does not revolutionize the gameplay as a WoW expansion does. Plus there's plenty of content patches in between to sate the appetite for new things to do, and all the while the developers' passion and dedication shines through. Blizzard is a rare case where their success has been well earned; they make their games because they love to, and not specifically for the purpose of appealing to a mass-market.
On StarCraft 2:
SC and BW had three campaigns, and around 30 missions each. SC2: Wings of Liberty (the first one) will have around 30 missions total, and the two to follow it will be the same length and add content (i.e. new units), so I don't see what there is to complain about. Essentially, they're saying that they're not making any single player content for the Zerg or Protoss until they've got the main game out the door, and that they're going to focus on one race at a time in their expansions. Would you have complained about Brood War if it was the second in a StarCraft trilogy, and its campaign was Zerg-only? And despite what anyone may say, this decision was supposed to have been due to Blizzard not wanting to compress their planned story arc into one 30 mission campaign, and knowing their developers' passion for their games, I believe them. There's also no confirmation that Heart of the Swarm or Legacy of the Void will cost as much as the first act of SC2.
On TS2:
The Sims 2 was great for a long time. Expansions were a large part of what made TS1 fun and unique. I won't deny that they improve the game and add depth. However, EA clearly ran out of ideas and started doing it just for the money and not to expand on the game. I have a hard time believing Pets and Seasons were copouts for cash - they added a great deal of realism and gameplay that The Sims had been devoid of - and most of the others were decent. But Free Time... really? As if my Sims weren't busy enough already? Like they needed hobbies? Which, by the way, cramp the wants section and in doing so end up taking over their lives if you want them to have decent aspiration levels. And Apartment Life is just plain stupid. Oh, yay, I can put them in tiny houses! I also don't approve of the half-assed attempt at recreating TS1's Makin' Magic that was thrown in, which was possibly the most fun of TS1's expansions. And this was after they started making Stuff Packs, which I see as an attempt to tap into the success of TS1's most essential expanion, Livin' Large. I can understand if they were completely original items with new uses, or better than what you could get with TS2 or expansions, but no. They're just themed packs of furniture and decor which could have easily been thrown in with the expansions (as they were in TS1). Note that Free Time and Apartment Life were both developed after EA bought Maxis.
On Spore:
The simplification and kiddie-fication of Spore aside (which Will Wright, the father of The Sims and Spore, disapproved of, and was done entirely because of EA) I don't see EA diverting from the formula that sold 100,000,000 units of TS2 and its various expansions and stuff packs. However, despite all of this, I do think it's a great game... albeit not as good as what was originally shown at GDC '05 - the Spore that was Will Wright's vision. When I get around to getting the parts pack and Galactic Adventures (which I will, when I next revisit it), I don't plan on paying for them. EA can get by without another $50, and Spore should continue to be an example of the futility of DRM.
TL;DR:
Yes, Spore is turning into "the next TS2." Long live piracy!
-
I played the Sims 1 for about half a night and got tired of making sure my sim peed and ate before he missed his car for work.
-
On WoW:
Each expansion has increased the level cap by 10, adds a whole new continent (the game shipped with two, that's nothing to laugh at), added some game-changing element (TBC added flying mounts and heroic dungeons, WotLK added vehicles and revolutionized questing), added a PvP battleground (a new one is coming out next content patch, as well), and several new spells for each class (and often in doing so completely changing class mechanics). And, in WotLK's case, adding a whole new class. So the $50 is absolutely worth it. Plus, they can only add more dungeons for so long before they have to extend the level cap and add new areas; eight tiers of raid advancement would be ridiculous to pack into the space that shipped with WoW. The expansions are completely worth it, if not necessary to have been made. And before any of you bash the game's quality... I think the 11 million active subscriptions speak for themselves. To surmise, a Sims expansion pack or stuff pack does not revolutionize the gameplay as a WoW expansion does. Plus there's plenty of content patches in between to sate the appetite for new things to do, and all the while the developer's passion and dedication shines through. Blizzard is a rare case where their success has been well earned; they make their games because they love to, and not specifically for the purpose of appealing to a mass-market.
Eve Online has also added hundreds of features and places, completely re-worked the Graphics engine to DX10 levels and has only about a tenth of the monthly income, and didn't charge a penny for those upgrades.
Blizzard makes an absolute fortune each month from WoW, there's absolutely no justification whatsoever in demanding yet more from people who are already paying for the service.
Guild Wars I can forgive, because the game itself is free, but Blizzard is, to my mind, just taking the piss.
-
On StarCraft 2:
SC and BW had three campaigns, and around 30 missions each. SC2: Wings of Liberty (the first one) will have around 30 missions total, and the two to follow it will be the same length and add content (i.e. new units), so I don't see what there is to complain about. Essentially, they're saying that they're not making any single player content for the Zerg or Protoss until they've got the main game out the door, and that they're going to focus on one race at a time in their expansions. Would you have complained about Brood War if it was the second in a StarCraft trilogy, and its campaign was Zerg-only? And despite what anyone may say, this decision was supposed to have been due to Blizzard not wanting to compress their planned story arc into one 30 mission campaign, and knowing their developers' passion for their games, I believe them. There's also no confirmation that Heart of the Swarm or Legacy of the Void will cost as much as the first act of SC2.
Okay, so in the above you say that the BW expansion was roughly the same length as the original game but was likely cheaper. But SC2 will have the expansions at the same price for roughly the same value as BW but it's okay???
I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo about Starcraft is anyway. Most of the fandom seems to come from the multiplayer. When the SP story has a bunch of redneck humour I'm not sure how the term "epic" can be applied to it. Epic in my opinion requires a sense of scale, Starcraft doesn't have that. Nor does SC2 by the looks of it. You play SC1 and the units are all the same size, then you cut to a cut scene and the flying Zerg are massive bombers and so forth. It's like a different story altogether. The last game for me that was truely epic is probably Freespace 2. Though there's a lot of games I haven't played.
-
On WoW and EVE:
EVE Online has 300,000 active accounts, which is less than 1/10 the monthly income. I think that speaks for itself. :nod:
In my opinion, the reason EVE expansions were free is because no one would want to pay $50 for an expansion to a game of lesser quality to WoW. Content patches have also done much of what you praise EVE for doing; patch 3.0 (the WotLK patch) overhauled the graphics and added achievements, and every content patch since and before (with the exception of the veeeery early ones and patch 2.0) has added a new dungeon and often new questing hubs. In the case of the upcoming patch 3.2, three new dungeons, two quest hubs, and an expansion of patch 3.1's Argent Tournament.
On SC2:
"Redneck Humor"
...
???
And as I said before, there is NO CONFIRMATION that SC2 expansions will cost as much as the first release of SC2. And the term "epic" can be applied to StarCraft because of its rich backstory - which would not be possible without single player - and if you think everything's the same size then you've never seen a zealot and a carrier next to one another. But that's irrelevant, "epic" isn't just a matter of size. Lightsaber battles are epic, so why not an RTS? :P In 1998 you just couldn't have that kind of scale running at 600x800 anyway.
Your criticisms are all about SC1, which don't apply at all to SC2... ever looked at screenshots?
-
On WoW and EVE:
EVE Online has 300,000 active accounts, which is less than 1/10 the monthly income. I think that speaks for itself.
In my opinion, the reason EVE expansions were free is because no one would want to pay $50 for an expansion to a game of lesser quality to WoW. Content patches have also done much of what you praise EVE for doing; patch 3.0 (the WotLK patch) overhauled the graphics and added achievements, and every content patch since and before (with the exception of the veeeery early ones and patch 2.0) has added a new dungeon and often new questing hubs. In the case of the upcoming patch 3.2, three new dungeons, two quest hubs, and an expansion of patch 3.1's Argent Tournament.
So you seem to be of the opinion that because you don't like a game, it's ok to expand it for free? Whereas if you like the game, you should be expected to pay?
I bet Blizzard wished they had more customers like that.
Edit:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1041353/wow-makes-huge-profits
Blizzard paid off maintenance costs for servers etc with 2 months worth of income, that's nearly a Billion dollars a year spare, and they can't put any of that money aside for upgrades?
And remember, that's your money they are making each month, and yet when it comes to update the Engine, in order to make sure that nice 135 million per month keeps on coming, who gets to foot the bill?
-
On SC2:
"Redneck Humor"
...
???
And as I said before, there is NO CONFIRMATION that SC2 expansions will cost as much as the first release of SC2. And the term "epic" can be applied to StarCraft because of its rich backstory - which would not be possible without single player - and if you think everything's the same size then you've never seen a zealot and a carrier next to one another. But that's irrelevant, "epic" isn't just a matter of size. Lightsaber battles are epic, so why not an RTS? :P In 1998 you just couldn't have that kind of scale running at 600x800 anyway.
Your criticisms are all about SC1, which don't apply at all to SC2... ever looked at screenshots?
SC2? Looks like SC1 with better graphics.
What I'm saying is that the cutscenes didn't match the game. Yes a Battleship or whatever it's called was bigger than a marine during gameplay, but then you get to the cutscenes and battleships are massive and the battle is much much larger and it's just not the same story. It just didn't draw me in. Granted, I played it years after it was first released, but in terms of graphics and so on I'm pretty forgiving since most of the games I played are older titles anyway. And I've never played multi for SC1, I never play multi these days really. I only buy games for the singleplayer. I finished SC1 at least, and most of the expansion . . . which is more than I can say for DoW1.
Btw there's no confirmation that the "expansions" will be cheaper either. They're all stand alone games. They all offer the same value. Why would one be cheaper than the other? Logically, they're probably following the episodic route that Valve took. The games themselves might be cheaper than the average game, but they'll be more expensive than expansions. So whether a person saves money or not in the end, who knows.
Don't worry. Everyone's doing this these days. Remember Valve said they would deliver more free content for Left4Dead? And as far as I know nothing was ever released. Nothing released except of course a press statement announcing Left4Dead2.
On WoW and EVE:
EVE Online has 300,000 active accounts, which is less than 1/10 the monthly income. I think that speaks for itself. :nod:
In my opinion, the reason EVE expansions were free is because no one would want to pay $50 for an expansion to a game of lesser quality to WoW.
Lesser quality? By who's definition? Mind you, they're both **** in my opinion.
-
I'll probably end up pirating SC2:WoL to try it out. If I think its worth the $40 or $50, I'll buy it. If Blizzard tries to turn it into another WoW money-printing machine, I will hate Blizzard with a passion. I used to be a rabid fanboy, but then WoW got released, forever souring me on them.
-
SC2? Looks like SC1 with better graphics.
What I'm saying is that the cutscenes didn't match the game. Yes a Battleship or whatever it's called was bigger than a marine during gameplay, but then you get to the cutscenes and battleships are massive and the battle is much much larger and it's just not the same story. It just didn't draw me in. Granted, I played it years after it was first released, but in terms of graphics and so on I'm pretty forgiving since most of the games I played are older titles anyway. And I've never played multi for SC1, I never play multi these days really. I only buy games for the singleplayer. I finished SC1 at least, and most of the expansion . . . which is more than I can say for DoW1.
Btw there's no confirmation that the "expansions" will be cheaper either. They're all stand alone games. They all offer the same value. Why would one be cheaper than the other? Logically, they're probably following the episodic route that Valve took. The games themselves might be cheaper than the average game, but they'll be more expensive than expansions. So whether a person saves money or not in the end, who knows.
I will repeat. In 1998, with the technology of the time and running at 600x800 resolution you just couldn't display the scale of, say, SupCom. And your aversion to multiplayer is a serious bias; StarCraft shines in multiplayer. It's the same deal as Halo, really. Epic story, but limited replayability, which is offset by amazing multiplayer. You should give it a try sometime.
So you seem to be of the opinion that because you don't like a game, it's ok to expand it for free? Whereas if you like the game, you should be expected to pay?
Blizzard paid off maintenance costs for servers etc with 2 months worth of income, that's nearly a Billion dollars a year spare, and they can't put any of that money aside for upgrades?
And remember, that's your money they are making each month, and yet when it comes to update the Engine, in order to make sure that nice 135 million per month keeps on coming, who gets to foot the bill?
I have no idea what you mean by what you think my opinion is. My point was that EVE doesn't have anything on WoW as far as free updates go. And besides that, you need the latest patch to even play WoW. Ergo, the overhauled graphics that came with patch 3.0 were freely available without having to buy the expansion pack it was made to prepare for (which is a point in and of itself, the graphics update was out before the expansion pack). "Putting aside money for upgrades" doesn't mean anything outside of "continuing to pay their development team to make new content,"... and content patches are out every couple of months. As far as I'm concerned the only reason EVE's "expansions" are a selling point is because the word "expansion" has a different connotation than "patch." And EVE's expansions are far more comparable to WoW's content patches.
As far as I'm concerned they can have my $15 a month if they want it, they can even have another $50 for another expansion if they want it. There's a huge difference between EA and Blizzard. EA makes games that appeal to the widest possible audience, and dumbs down franchises that it acquires (Spore and Red Alert 3 are prime examples). Blizzard has a history of killer apps, and until they make a deliberate sellout move, they have my devotion for it.
To use a metaphor, just because an artist isn't starving doesn't mean he's doing it for the money. :P
-
I will repeat. In 1998, with the technology of the time and running at 600x800 resolution you just couldn't display the scale of, say, SupCom. And your aversion to multiplayer is a serious bias; StarCraft shines in multiplayer. It's the same deal as Halo, really. Epic story, but limited replayability, which is offset by amazing multiplayer. You should give it a try sometime.
Serious Bias? I don't dislike the game because it has multiplayer, I just chose not to play it. I don't particularly care for RTS much anyway.
And are you telling me that in 1998 they couldn't make a big pixel image just as easily as a small pixel image? No they limited the size of the ships, etcetera for gameplay's sake. For me, it was a little bit of a stretch to see these tiny dozen Zerg suddenly turn into a thousand super creatures laying waste to the landscape. It's like you're supposed to be in some huge epic war but really you're just fighting little skirmishes. If the cut scenes were toned down a bit I might've been able to make a better connection between what it showed me and what was actually being played out, but as it is I didn't buy it. That and the humour is all tongue in cheek.
Btw another game came out in 1998, it was called Freespace 2. And guess what, they could represent the scale of a Sathanas compared to the scale of a little wee fighter. And it was awesome. (EDIT - oops it came out in 1999. Oh well replace "Sathanas" with "Lucifer" and my statement stands. Though perhaps FS1 wasn't quite as epic).
I don't have a problem with outdated graphics. I played Thief: Dark Project for the first time 8 months ago. It's the most immersive game I've ever played.
-
Serious Bias? I don't dislike the game because it has multiplayer, I just chose not to play it. I don't particularly care for RTS much anyway.
And are you telling me that in 1998 they couldn't make a big pixel image just as easily as a small pixel image? No they limited the size of the ships, etcetera for gameplay's sake. For me, it was a little bit of a stretch to see these tiny dozen Zerg suddenly turn into a thousand super creatures laying waste to the landscape. It's like you're supposed to be in some huge epic war but really you're just fighting little skirmishes. If the cut scenes were toned down a bit I might've been able to make a better connection between what it showed me and what was actually being played out, but as it is I didn't buy it. That and the humour is all tongue in cheek.
Btw another game came out in 1998, it was called Freespace 2. And guess what, they could represent the scale of a Sathanas compared to the scale of a little wee fighter. And it was awesome.
I don't have a problem with outdated graphics. I played Thief: Dark Project for the first time 8 months ago. It's the most immersive game I've ever played.
Not liking multiplayer is a serious bias because you're judging the gameplay based on its worst parts. I never meant to imply you didn't like it because you don't like multiplayer.
Back then at 800x600 resolution, as I have said twice already, a huge something-or-other would take up most of the screen, and lots of them would cause serious framerate issues with the technology of the time. I have no idea what you mean by "tiny dozen zerg suddenly turning into a thousand super creatures," but if you are referring to the way the Zerg build everything organically by mutation then that's an extremely petty criticism.
And, by the way, FS2 came out in 1999. :wtf: And considering it was developed in a year, versus SC's three (four?) year development cycle, the one year difference between release means a four year difference from when development on SC started... which means a four year graphics gap. But aside from that, the RTS genre didn't enter the third dimension to stay until well into the 21st century, and with good reason There's a big difference between the amount of stuff onscreen in FreeSpace and any RTS.
But that's comparing apples to oranges. That would be like saying "Sim City sucks because you can't see the people as clearly as you can in The Sims!" The gameplay depended on having huge ships like the Sathanas. In StarCraft having carriers twice as large as they are would impair the gameplay.
-
I have no idea what you mean by what you think my opinion is. My point was that EVE doesn't have anything on WoW as far as free updates go. And besides that, you need the latest patch to even play WoW. Ergo, the overhauled graphics that came with patch 3.0 were freely available without having to buy the expansion pack it was made to prepare for (which is a point in and of itself, the graphics update was out before the expansion pack). "Putting aside money for upgrades" doesn't mean anything outside of "continuing to pay their development team to make new content,"... and content patches are out every couple of months. As far as I'm concerned the only reason EVE's "expansions" are a selling point is because the word "expansion" has a different connotation than "patch." And EVE's expansions are far more comparable to WoW's content patches.
I wholly disagree that Eve updates are anything different to WoW updates, just like WoW, they've not only updated Graphics, but expanded the play area and dynamics, and introduced new skills, since the levelling system works differently from WoW.
As for your opinion, I'll simply quote you:
In my opinion, the reason EVE expansions were free is because no one would want to pay $50 for an expansion to a game of lesser quality to WoW.
Personally, I think reason Eve expansions are free is because there are so many player-run scams in the game that they'd see a company-run scam like this coming a mile away. And I'm not trying to defend Eve Online, because I left it some time ago because I wasn't particularly enjoying myself.
If you're happy paying Blizzard $50 on top of your monthly payment, fine, but please don't try to convince yourself they 'earned' it or 'deserve' it, at least accept it for the rip-off that it is, even if you intend to pay it.
-
If you're happy paying Blizzard $50 on top of your monthly payment, fine, but please don't try to convince yourself they 'earned' it or 'deserve' it, at least accept it for the rip-off that it is, even if you intend to pay it.
That's the joy (curse?) of the free market, though. It doesn't matter one bit what you "deserve" or "earn"...it's all about what people are willing to pay for. And if millions of WoW subscribers are willing to pay $50 for each of those expansions, I don't blame Blizzard in the least for charging that much. :p
-
Same here, if they can exploit the market and the market is willing to let itself be exploited, then best of luck to them, it just winds me up when people try to convince themselves that such an obvious rip-off is justified.
-
How about we leave that distinction to the individuals it affects, Hmm?
-
Not in this case, no, that this is a blatant rip-off is undeniable fact, regardless of how good the game is.
Once again, I restate, if people are prepared to spend that money to enjoy the game, best of luck to them, but to earn 8 figures a month from a game, and then charging the customers in order to expand the game and maintain/increase that 8-Digit number is a rip-off, no matter what way it is looked at, this isn't about opinion, it's about cold-hard business practice. It works, because people let it work, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no real salient reason for charging that price, other than the fact it is the highest they can 'get away with'.
-
"Blatant ripoff" is your opinion. Mine is that you get what you pay for, which is why I pay. Someone once said, "Everything is worth what the buyer will pay for it." ...Or something like that, it was one of the quotes in Civ IV.
The discussion is moot at this point, I much prefer the StarCraft argument. :lol:
-
Of course, they can't possibly raise that 8-digit figure from the 8-figure player base, can they (it hit 10 million players January last year)?
Not in this case, no, that this is a blatant rip-off is undeniable fact, regardless of how good the game is.
I see. So the quality of the game has nothing to do with it? This game could be God's gift to humanity (it isn't, I know), and it still wouldn't be worth paying for? Also, how can you pass off that opinion as a fact, much less an undeniable one? So you think it's a rip-off. Bully for you, go sulk with all the other people who think that, and let the people who don't play the stupid game.
-
Like I said, it's not about opinion, it's about fact, not all rip-offs are illegal, or even neccesarily 'bad', but they are still rip-offs.
I'm glad you like the game and hope you carry on enjoying it, but the idea of 'you get what you pay for' is a highly dubious analogy when taken to the world of Digital Content, and when you, as a fanbase, are paying $135 million a month, you've got to really take a critical look at what you are 'getting' for it.
Of course, they can't possibly raise that 8-digit figure from the 8-figure player base, can they (it hit 10 million players January last year)?
Yes, they have a 10 million player-base, which they get 8 figures from, and yet they STILL want another $50 from each of them for each expansion.
I see. So the quality of the game has nothing to do with it? This game could be God's gift to humanity (it isn't, I know), and it still wouldn't be worth paying for? Also, how can you pass off that opinion as a fact, much less an undeniable one? So you think it's a rip-off. Bully for you, go sulk with all the other people who think that, and let the people who don't play the stupid game.
1 : The quality of the game was already being paid for with monthly subscriptions, the fact of the matter is there was absolutely no monetary need for Blizzard to ask for yet more cash from their customers and yet, they did. That people chose to pay it, that's their choice, but there's no argument whatsoever that can actually justify the need of the extra money from players.
2: Grow up.
-
1 : The quality of the game was already being paid for with monthly subscriptions, the fact of the matter is there was absolutely no monetary need for Blizzard to ask for yet more cash from their customers and yet, they did. That people chose to pay it, that's their choice, but there's no argument whatsoever that can actually justify the need of the extra money from players.
2: Grow up.
1: Right, because big businesses love to stop being big businesses. It's just how the capitalist system works, get used to it. Already large corporations have never tried to justify making more money. That would be like saying Wal-Mart should give away free groceries, or Microsoft should start handing out copies of Windows install disks for free.
They should... but that's beside the point, and a communist speaking.
Ahem. They won't.
2: I love irony too.
I tend to agree with Scotty though... don't force your opinion on everyone else. Don't try to force people to change theirs. If you don't like WoW, feel free to keep on disliking it. Just don't be so loudmouthed and condescending about it.
*Tries hard to resist the urge to make an analogy to the church*
And WoW is up to 11 million now.
-
So you are changing your argument from 'It's worth it' to 'Well, it's just business'? Because that's the argument I've been taking from the top, calling it a rip-off does not mean it's bad, it just means it's a rip-off, it's unjustified, but it works, best of luck to them, but that still doesn't mean it's not unjustified.
2 : I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but when I start telling you to 'go sulk' you'll know I'm being childish...
I'm not forcing an opinion, the fact that Blizzard charge money they don't need is not an opinion, I'm not telling you to like the game or not like the game, either for its content or its price, I'm simply saying don't convince yourself that the $50 is justified in some way, either take it on the chin, pay the money and enjoy the game, or don't, but don't pretend they need or deserve the money.
I'm not sure I like your hints at church like mentality here, once again, I've not dictated to anyone whether to play or not.
Oh, and I'd like people to post all the comments I've made that are 'loud-mouthed' or 'condescending'.
-
No, I'm debasing your argument. You're basically saying they should make games for free.
I'm not forcing an opinion...
Uh huh.
...but don't pretend they need or deserve the money.
Eh? You seem to be contradicting yourself there. It's my opinion that they deserve it (though I am aware they don't need it). That's not to say I'm going to open my wallet and say "Here, take it all, you've earned it!" I have respect for them, and I think what you get for their price is worth it. It's your opinion that WoW is a ripoff.
Value is a highly subjective thing, and I will once again recall that quote...
"Everything is worth what the buyer will pay for it."
But besides that, saying that one of the greatest developers in the history of PC gaming doesn't deserve a reward for their hard work and outstanding achievements is absurd.
-
How, exactly is $135 MILLION a month, 'for free'?
And I repeat, not an opinion, a fact, Blizzard did not need to charge for it, but they could charge for it, so they did charge for it. The fact you are willing to pay for it is not evidence that it is not a rip-off, merely evidence that it is a rip-off that works.
Why do people assume this is a bad thing? I bought three packages of X3 that were essentially the same game, fine, my choice, but that doesn't mean I wasn't ripped off, I'm just not mad about it. People seem to think I'm somehow insulting them by suggesting that there was no need for Blizzard to charge them $50, I'm not, I've not called one single person who has chosen to pay that money 'stupid' or 'daft' or anything of the sort, because I don't think they are, possibly a bit gullible, but as my X3 example shows, they are not alone.
What I honestly don't understand is the level of hostility I'm meeting for daring to suggest that Blizzard might be exploiting their customer base, when that's what customer bases are for.
-
No one needs to charge for anything. That's not a valid argument.
And I didn't mean to say $135 million was for free. That's the monthly fee for playing the game and its large content patches. But for expansion content - which is too large to ever be included in a content patch - you have to pay. It makes sense. They DO update the game for free, it's their largest updates that cost money.
I'm not assuming "it's a bad thing," but that doesn't change that it is my opinion that $50 for an enormous expansion pack is worth it, and I'm entitled to that opinion. Value is a relativistic thing; the same item is worth many different values to different people. WoW happens to appeal to my quite a lot, and I happen to think that $50 is worth it. I'm not saying they aren't exploiting us - it's true they could easily give expansion packs away for free and still get by quite well - but I'm willing to pay.
-
Check that Register article, the cost for maintaining servers, paying staff etc for 2 years is $200 million, that's less than 2 months income, what happens to the rest of the Billion dollars per year, how much, do you think, is poured back into development?
Yes, your entitled to any opinion you want, I've never once said otherwise, but the fact remains that there's no justifiable reason to charge that money other than the fact that people are willing to pay it.
-
I did read the article, and "pouring money into development" would simply mean either hiring more staff (which would dilute the visionary team that's already there, and is already large enough and producing content at a decent rate) or increasing the wage of the existing development team.
I won't argue with you on the fact that there's no justification for charging money for expansions. I am a communist after all. I just happen to not mind. It would seem we aren't arguing anymore. :D
-
IN BEFORE LOCK[/inanity]
----
And I didn't mean to say $135 million was for free. That's the monthly fee for playing the game and its large content patches.
Then Holy Hell, they're overcharging. A Trip-A class title generally has a development cycle of at least eight months, and generally costs half that much.
But for expansion content - which is too large to ever be included in a content patch - you have to pay. It makes sense.
Just how many DVDs are in that box!? Because I'm pretty sure that you can download the entire game through a dedicated client.
And that's beside the point, because (IIRC) WoW steals uses bandwidth from its customers through P2P file sharing (see: BitTorrent protocols, and the like) for their patches.
They DO update the game for free, it's their largest updates that cost money.
....
....
And I didn't mean to say $135 million was for free. That's the monthly fee for playing the game and its large content patches.
-
I did read the article, and "pouring money into development" would simply mean either hiring more staff (which would dilute the visionary team that's already there, and is already large enough and producing content at a decent rate) or increasing the wage of the existing development team.
I won't argue with you on the fact that there's no justification for charging money for expansions. I am a communist after all. I just happen to not mind. It would seem we aren't arguing anymore. :D
Hehe, I don't have any gripe with you, best of luck if you have the money and feel it's worth it, so we'll leave it at that with the discussion :D To be honest, knowing me, if I could afford the monthly fee, I'd probably be shelling out for the expansions as well, regardless of my feelings towards doing so :)
Well, development would mostly be in the form of underlying technologies, I'd like to see more effort put into decreasing waiting lists, and loosening up some of the more laggy servers, last I heard these could both be problematical at times, that, I think, would be a great place to start, using the money to improve the online experience for those that already play.
-
Just how many DVDs are in that box!? Because I'm pretty sure that you can download the entire game through a dedicated client.
Yay misinterpretation!
Okay, you could say that it's not free because you pay $15 a month. But even so, they have no obligation to make content patches. They could keep making expansions without the content patches in between and still get $15 a month. So the content patches really are for free - you don't have to pay extra to play them.
WoW hardly uses any bandwidth - at least not enough to make a game of StarCraft (yeah I know, Blizzard fanboy here) lag while I'm on WoW and waiting for a raid to assemble.
Only one DVD for Wrath of the Lich King, and yes you can download it through a client (though it takes 8 hours on Roadrunner broadband), but the new content is as vast ingame as it is an improvement over Burning Crusade and, especially, vanilla WoW.
...if I could afford the monthly fee, I'd probably be shelling out for the expansions as well, regardless of my feelings towards doing so :)
Yeah... I'm in that boat too. Communism!
Well, development would mostly be in the form of underlying technologies, I'd like to see more effort put into decreasing waiting lists, and loosening up some of the more laggy servers, last I heard these could both be problematical at times, that, I think, would be a great place to start, using the money to improve the online experience for those that already play.
I've never had a problem with lag outside of the week or so after an enormous content patch on a medium population (30,000) unless it was my connection that was the problem. And waiting lists don't happen unless the server is full to capacity, but then it's your fault for rolling a character there. :p
They also offer free character transfers to new servers, and when crowing is a serious problem they offer free transfers from the large ones.
-
Back then at 800x600 resolution, as I have said twice already, a huge something-or-other would take up most of the screen, and lots of them would cause serious framerate issues with the technology of the time. I have no idea what you mean by "tiny dozen zerg suddenly turning into a thousand super creatures," but if you are referring to the way the Zerg build everything organically by mutation then that's an extremely petty criticism.
And, by the way, FS2 came out in 1999. :wtf: And considering it was developed in a year, versus SC's three (four?) year development cycle, the one year difference between release means a four year difference from when development on SC started... which means a four year graphics gap. But aside from that, the RTS genre didn't enter the third dimension to stay until well into the 21st century, and with good reason There's a big difference between the amount of stuff onscreen in FreeSpace and any RTS.
But that's comparing apples to oranges. That would be like saying "Sim City sucks because you can't see the people as clearly as you can in The Sims!" The gameplay depended on having huge ships like the Sathanas. In StarCraft having carriers twice as large as they are would impair the gameplay.
I take it you've never heard of Total Annihilation.
-
Heh. TA was my favorite RTS before I discovered C&C and SC. But...
...the RTS genre didn't enter the third dimension to stay...
I edited that bit in specifically recalling TA. :D
Side note, SupCom doesn't do it justice in my opinion. Oh how I miss the krogoth... Lost my TA discs quite some time ago, and I've never bothered to pirate it. Of course, that's assuming it works on Vista. Oh how I miss XP, too... MechWarrior 2 worked on XP sometimes. :(
-
Bloodeagle, the thing is, it's not so much about the quality of service as the price people were willing to pay, in many ways I am in awe of Blizzard, I could fall down and worship their marketing department, because they all must have metaphorical balls the size of honeydew melons and coated in Kevlar ;) You can do little but admire that companies ability to make money.
-
And now, back on topic!
The same goes for EA, I'm sure there are plenty of tween girls out there who are willing to open their wallets for TS2 stuff packs. They wouldn't have kept on making them if there wasn't a market.
-
Well since The Sims 3 is out, if they released an all-in-one expansion set I'd buy it.
-
Well, in my experience, the main Demographic for Sims 2 is actually more the young-middle aged couple, where male partner gets moaned at for spending too much time in front of the computer, and devises a cunning plan of, rather than spending less time in front of the computer, buying a game that his partner can share in.
Particularly in the case of couples that haven't started a family yet, the financial hit every few months isn't too much damage.
-
Expansions are one thing, but there's no excuse for stuff packs. Expansions add new gameplay mechanics, and in the days of TS1 they also added appropriately themed furniture and better quality items. Stuff packs are just themed items - not better quality, nothing with a new use. Expansions are worth the $30... usually. See my earlier post about Free Time and Apartment Life.
We'll see what EA does with The Sims 3. Honestly, I think it's looking bleak with Will Wright out of the picture. The visionary is gone, his vision long dead.
-
I could fall down and worship their marketing department, because they all must have metaphorical balls the size of honeydew melons[...,] coated in Kevlar ;)
That's never going to leave my mind, now. I hope you're happy.
-
I think I've got 'Family Fun Stuff' laying around somewhere, which came in at around 10GBP, and I agree, you can download better stuff for free.
That's never going to leave my mind, now. I hope you're happy.
You'll never look at Starcraft in the same way ;)
-
That's never going to leave my mind, now. I hope you're happy.
We have a winner.
Sig'd :yes:
And yeah, I got Family Fun Stuff too...
Then I realized it was dumb.
Then more came out.
Then I started to hate EA.
-
Pets was bad, Bon Voyage was worse. Seasons was one of the best ones.
-
BV was dumb, but I like Pets. Or rather I did... I usually don't get pets for my Sims anymore, they just seem a little tedious now.
University was realistic but unnecessary and it dragged on too much.
I like Nightlife for the cars and the house music, but that's about it.
Open For Business was a nice diversion at first, but ultimately it's expensive and a huge time sink. Though the ownership rewards are oh so nice.
-
Pets would have been better if it was more than just cats and dogs LOL
Actually Nightlife was pretty good, dating & cars.
As for stuffit packs, the only one worth getting is Mansions & Gardens, which is more like a mini-expansion.
Edit: OfB was ok... definitely time-sink and money maker (provided you use business runs you)
Uni was ok
Apartments was another meh
Freetime was pretty cool
-
I wasn't aware there was a Mansions & Gardens pack... I'll have to torrent that. Thanks.
The one thing Pets doesn't have that Unleashed had... iguanas. But I do agree, some variety would be nice. Turtles or a bunch of different themed fish tanks would be cool.
EDIT: Quick search on MTS2 found this
http://www.modthesims.info/download.php?t=108036
Fish tank coffee table, thought it was nifty.
-
M&G runs it's own executablem so you might need some hack updates. Finally they got real ceiling fans LOL
-
Not liking multiplayer is a serious bias because you're judging the gameplay based on its worst parts. I never meant to imply you didn't like it because you don't like multiplayer.
On it's worst parts? Okay. Tell me, is Starcraft awesome because of it's "epic" backstory in the single player? Or because of it's multiplayer??? And I'm sorry, but if the SP is the "worst" part then the game sucks. Personally I enjoyed the Starcraft SP campaign, and I don't need multiplayer to like it more. Multiplayer is fun versus your friends sure, but against random people who cares???
I have no idea what you mean by "tiny dozen zerg suddenly turning into a thousand super creatures," but if you are referring to the way the Zerg build everything organically by mutation then that's an extremely petty criticism.
No. That's not what I'm referring to. Okay where's my dumb rulebook . . . okay the "Guardians". Right. So in the game, maybe you build 20 guardians or 20 of those other flying Dragon things. Cool. Onscreen, they're what smaller than even a Siege Tank right? Then you get a cut scene from the fall of the Protoss World, and suddenly these Guardians are like massive and there's thousands of them blotting out the sky and I'm like "hey, that's not what I'm playing."
And, by the way, FS2 came out in 1999. :wtf: And considering it was developed in a year, versus SC's three (four?) year development cycle, the one year difference between release means a four year difference from when development on SC started... which means a four year graphics gap. But aside from that, the RTS genre didn't enter the third dimension to stay until well into the 21st century, and with good reason.
Okay. So . . . SC took four years to develop. FS2 took one year. And FS2 is still a more "epic" game.
There's a big difference between the amount of stuff onscreen in FreeSpace and any RTS.
But that's comparing apples to oranges. That would be like saying "Sim City sucks because you can't see the people as clearly as you can in The Sims!" The gameplay depended on having huge ships like the Sathanas. In StarCraft having carriers twice as large as they are would impair the gameplay.
It would impair the gameplay as it stands. Of course if you had massive ships like that, you would need to alter the gameplay to accomodate. That's one thing I like about Dawn of War, everything on the battlefield is to scale which each other. Dropship comes in, and it's massive. Too bad I lost interest in the story and never even finished the original campaign. . .
Oh the computer in Starcraft also cheats. It never runs out of resources. Which is another thing I find very annoying.
-
Oh and btw, what's with the fanboys? Like "Blizzard can do no wrong" or "Valve is awesome" or whatever. Either you like a game and play it or you don't, who cares who made the thing. I dunno some people in this thread seem of the Blizzard can do no wrong camp, but whatever. They're just another company out to make a buck. Everything they do is in their interests, not their fans interests. They don't give a **** who plays their games as long as they pay for them. Of course loyalty is good and Blizzard seems to have acquired it in spades for some undefinable reason. It's good when you have people in your pocket who will buy everything you put out no matter what it is.
As for MMOs. Well, MMOs are just grinding grinding grinding. I dunno who really wants to pay 40 bucks a month or whatever to kill the same creatures over and over to get to that next level? Or to mine space rock and sell it at the space station? Wow joy!!!
Only multiplayer game I play these days is VGA Planets.
-
Starcraft does have good SP, but it's still the worst part by comparison. It's like saying I like dark chocolate more than milk chocolate. Chocolate is chocolate! And, against random people is still fun, because they're usually better than your friends. :P
Guardians are actually about the same size as a siege tank, but the size of the units ingame shouldn't really affect the fun you're having. It doesn't impact the gameplay at all.
My point about the development time was that there was a huge graphical gap, so you can't really hold Starcraft's graphics against it. That would be like scolding Dawn of War for not looking like Supreme Commander. And Dawn of War came out in 2004. That's eight years ahead of Starcraft, and not a valid basis of comparison.
Oh and btw, what's with the fanboys?... They're just another company out to make a buck. Everything they do is in their interests, not their fans interests.
Of course loyalty is good and Blizzard seems to have acquired it in spades for some undefinable reason. It's good when you have people in your pocket who will buy everything you put out no matter what it is.
Despite what you might think, Blizzard is one of the few developers who isn't just in it for the money. I will cite a metaphor I used earlier. Just because an artist isn't starving doesn't mean he's doing it for the money.
Loyalty is good, and there's a very definable reason. They have been one of the most influential video game developers ever since the first Warcraft, and continue to be. Personally I won't buy anything they put out - I don't care much for Diablo, despite its critical acclaim - and most won't blindly buy anything they develop either. They just happen to be a purveyor of excellent games.
-
Okay. So . . . SC took four years to develop. FS2 took one year. And FS2 is still a more "epic" game.
Okay, now look at the type of game (RTS vs. Space Sim), the amount of units on-screen at any given time (1600 [goes up to a max 4000 at some points] vs. 100 [300 with the after release player created, non-retail versions]), and finally the practicality of showing those gigantic vehicles as gigantic in-game (practicality is apporaching 0 for StarCraft vs. needed to give the game an epic feeling at all).
On it's worst parts? Okay. Tell me, is Starcraft awesome because of it's "epic" backstory in the single player? Or because of it's multiplayer??? And I'm sorry, but if the SP is the "worst" part then the game sucks. Personally I enjoyed the Starcraft SP campaign, and I don't need multiplayer to like it more. Multiplayer is fun versus your friends sure, but against random people who cares???
On a related example, I think the worst part of the Halo franchise is it's single player. Does that make the single player suck? No, the single player is epic. The multiplayer is just more fun, and has replayability. At some point, you are going to have seen everything your friends have to offer.
Oh the computer in Starcraft also cheats. It never runs out of resources. Which is another thing I find very annoying.
It does not cheat. It just has the advantage of perfect reflexes. Try boxing a computer in with no resources on a regular map. The units stop coming.
-
My points exactly Scotty. There are user-created AIs out there for StarCraft that cheat however. One of my friends plays against them for practice, and they routinely whoop him. They have infinite resources, fast building units and, as he puts it, "play like two Koreans."
-
User created is the key
word phrase in that sentence. Normal AI is easy, and will never change because there is no difficulty setting.
-
Yeah, I just thought it was noteworthy.
-
Despite what you might think, Blizzard is one of the few developers who isn't just in it for the money. I will cite a metaphor I used earlier. Just because an artist isn't starving doesn't mean he's doing it for the money.
Loyalty is good, and there's a very definable reason. They have been one of the most influential video game developers ever since the first Warcraft, and continue to be. Personally I won't buy anything they put out - I don't care much for Diablo, despite its critical acclaim - and most won't blindly buy anything they develop either. They just happen to be a purveyor of excellent games.
You know this HOW exactly? You know people at Blizzard? You think they're all just creating games out of the goodness of their hearts?
First of all. Let me tell you something. The people making money at Blizzard aren't artists. They're producers, directors, etcetera. The "artists" and/or programmers are of course getting money working there, but for them it's a job. The only way an artist is going to make big bucks is if he develops some game concept and gets a good share of the final product. It's the same with television. The "artists" do a bunch of work, and get decent pay, but it's the producers and the higher ups raking in the big bucks.
As for Blizzard. I can't say I care for them. All they seem to make is RTS games are RTS games aren't my cup of tea. I played through about half of Warcraft 1, and Starcraft plus most of Brood War. Beyond that I've never touched their games. If they make an FPS or something similar, then I might start caring for them as a company.
Heck, on the subject of Blizzard. From what I understand it, their warcraft and starcraft lines are basically just copies of Warhammer and Warhammer 40k respectively which they made when they failed to get the rights from Games Workshop. Zerg=Tyranids, Protoss=Eldar, Humans=Empire. etcetera . . . but then again everyone copies everyone anyway.
It does not cheat. It just has the advantage of perfect reflexes. Try boxing a computer in with no resources on a regular map. The units stop coming.
Um, yes, it does cheat. It NEVER runs out of resources. I've been in a situation, where, I ran out of resources. So I then decided to snipe away at his units to lower his defences. All the resources on the map were gone. I was taking out units on a continual basis, he kept building more. I destroyed a building or two, he rebuilt them. I did this for a while until I realised that I was completely wasting my time because the computer is a cheater and never ever runs out of resources. So then, I restarted the map, and won it easily (because I knew the map already), which was a lot less satisfying.
It cheats. Plain and simple.
-
I just love how you dislike a company completely independently of it's quality, but rather on the fact that RTSs are not your favorite kind of game.
Point 2: Okay. You ran out of resources. That means that obviously the computer must be cheating if it has a penny to its name. I personally never let my funds below 10000 or so after the first 20 minutes as a safety measure.
There is a very easy way to prove that a computer does not cheat. Go to the campaign editor and select any map. Or just make a new one. Do not put minerals on it. As part of the Map Settings, set starting player resources to 0. Then, place the command center and start area. Watch as the computer is unable to do anything because it doesn't have money.
-
I just love how you dislike a company completely independently of it's quality, but rather on the fact that RTSs are not your favorite kind of game.
Point 2: Okay. You ran out of resources. That means that obviously the computer must be cheating if it has a penny to its name. I personally never let my funds below 10000 or so after the first 20 minutes as a safety measure.
There is a very easy way to prove that a computer does not cheat. Go to the campaign editor and select any map. Or just make a new one. Do not put minerals on it. As part of the Map Settings, set starting player resources to 0. Then, place the command center and start area. Watch as the computer is unable to do anything because it doesn't have money.
Here's a better method to see that the computer AI DOES cheat; put down resources but build it out of the way. The AI will almost always go directly for those resource dumps while the player is stuck exploring to find them in the first place. Player-AI (like automated workers) doesn't do a darned thing to help but computer-AI knows all.
-
That's because its not possible to put fog of war on a computer. That's not cheating, it's just an advantage. Kind of like tactics on the player's side.
-
I just love how you dislike a company completely independently of it's quality, but rather on the fact that RTSs are not your favorite kind of game.
I don't dislike them, they simply don't interest me because they haven't produced anything of interest.
Point 2: Okay. You ran out of resources. That means that obviously the computer must be cheating if it has a penny to its name. I personally never let my funds below 10000 or so after the first 20 minutes as a safety measure.
There is a very easy way to prove that a computer does not cheat. Go to the campaign editor and select any map. Or just make a new one. Do not put minerals on it. As part of the Map Settings, set starting player resources to 0. Then, place the command center and start area. Watch as the computer is unable to do anything because it doesn't have money.
Excuse me. But the computer cheats. The fact that I ran out of resources is irrelevant, the fact that he did, and yet continued to build things IS relevant. I was continually killing units with a fleet of Zerg Queens. I came in and destroyed buildings as the opportunity allowed. Basically I was costing him a lot of resources yet he still built a default number of units. Clearly there is a minimum that the computer can build regardless of what it has in store. If the computer had more resources why didn't he build an attack force? The computer never built up, he simply replaced the units and buildings that he had lost.
I'm not talking about some "quick action" mode. I'm talking about the campaign itself. What the computer does in some pre-defined lack of resources is irrelevant.
-
Replay video then, because Scotty's still right, put no resources in a map, give all players zero resources, and the AI's dead in the water.
-
He just said in campaign. Are you honestly holding the AI to spotlessness in a campaign that you start out at a disadvantage in every mission anyway?
-
All they seem to make is RTS games are RTS games aren't my cup of tea.
So you've never heard of Diablo or WoW?
I was continually killing units with a fleet of Zerg Queens.
Queens are spellcaster units. They don't have a direct-damage attack. Unless you count Spawn Broodlings, but that only affects units and not buildings. The Broodlings themselves are weak as hell anyway... certainly not enough to start blowing up your enemy's base. Durrrr.
And I just did as Scotty suggested - I edited all of the resources out of the map Astral Balance, started up a quick melee game against an AI, typed in the cheat "black sheep wall" so I can see everything, and watched as the AI did nothing.
-
He just said in campaign. Are you honestly holding the AI to spotlessness in a campaign that you start out at a disadvantage in every mission anyway?
Yes I am holding it to spotlessness. You say "oh it doesn't cheat" and now you're saying "oh you were playing the campaign, so you shouldn't complain anyway" essentially. And yes I am holding it to spotlessness.
and WHY? Because, sometimes, the most satisfying victories are the ones that are the closest. The ones where you're down and defeated but you claw your way to victory. That's not possible with the Starcraft campaign. Because it CHEATS. Simple as that. So instead, I have to restart the map, and walk all over the AI because I know the map already, and basically waste my time winning a mission that I should've been able to win the first time.
So you've never heard of Diablo or WoW?
I'll shoot myself before I throw hours of my life away grinding on WoW. (not to mention paying a fee every month??? no thanks)
As for Diablo. Heard of it, didn't interest me either. It might be amusing, but I've played similar games and stopped before finishing them.
Queens are spellcaster units. They don't have a direct-damage attack. Unless you count Spawn Broodlings, but that only affects units and not buildings. The Broodlings themselves are weak as hell anyway... certainly not enough to start blowing up your enemy's base. Durrrr.
Don't have a direct damage attack? They kill units with one shot. I call that direct damage. Obviously I had more than just queens but the queens were intended to wear him down, but 40+ dead Hydralisks later he was still building them. Attacked his spawning pool or something with some other guys, he rebuilt it, etcetera and so on. I don't care what it does in a pick-up game. I wasn't playing a pick-up game. I was playing a campaign game and there were a minimum number of defenders he would replenish regardless of how long he was out of resources.
-
You say "oh it doesn't cheat" and now you're saying "oh you were playing the campaign, so you shouldn't complain anyway" essentially.
Yes, because there is a GIGANTIC difference between the single-player AI and the multi-player AI. If the multi AI cheated, that would be stupid.
and WHY? Because, sometimes, the most satisfying victories are the ones that are the closest. The ones where you're down and defeated but you claw your way to victory. That's not possible with the Starcraft campaign. Because it CHEATS. Simple as that. So instead, I have to restart the map, and walk all over the AI because I know the map already, and basically waste my time winning a mission that I should've been able to win the first time.
This entire paragraph confuses me. You start out by saying it's better to win by a slim margin, then go on to bash the game about challenging you the first time through? If you run out of resources during one of the campaign missions, you aren't playing it right. Those things are practically littered with resources.
I'll shoot myself before I throw hours of my life away grinding on WoW.
But not before you throw hours of your life away arguing about the AI on a game in a forum.
Don't have a direct damage attack? They kill units with one shot. I call that direct damage.
The queen inflicts all damage through abilities, not direct attacks. It does not have a direct attack. if you think otherwise, click on something and watch it not attack.
40+ dead Hydralisks later he was still building them.
Only 40? Those things are most definately NOT for small group attacks. To win the later Zerg missions you have to swarm bases multiple times with 60+ at a time. A multitasker you must be.
-
Yes, because there is a GIGANTIC difference between the single-player AI and the multi-player AI. If the multi AI cheated, that would be stupid.
I've already stated I don't play multiplayer.
This entire paragraph confuses me. You start out by saying it's better to win by a slim margin, then go on to bash the game about challenging you the first time through? If you run out of resources during one of the campaign missions, you aren't playing it right. Those things are practically littered with resources.
Yes it's better to win by a slim margin but the slimmer the margin the less likely the win because the computer can't be beat in a war of attrition because he will always replace a default number of units. Though I won at least one of those battles. Because I remember one campaign game where I sent even my collector bugs to do battle in one massive attack and managed somehow to win out.
But not before you throw hours of your life away arguing about the AI on a game in a forum.
If you're spending hours on your replies you need to learn to type with more than one finger.
The queen inflicts all damage through abilities, not direct attacks. It does not have a direct attack. if you think otherwise, click on something and watch it not attack.
A rose by any other name.
It has an ability, where it can destroy a unit with one shot. (spawn broodlings) I call that direct damage. You can call it whatever you want but it's a direct attack that kills a unit.
40+ dead Hydralisks later he was still building them.
Only 40? Those things are most definately NOT for small group attacks. To win the later Zerg missions you have to swarm bases multiple times with 60+ at a time. A multitasker you must be.
No. I killed 40 Hydralisks at least, after all the resources were exhausted and after he had stopped attacking or even leaving his base but he kept building them so obviously the AI was cheating.
Anyway. We've established that the campaign AI cheats and that's what bothers me about that game so that's that.
-
Please enlighten me as to the content of this mission. You go from saying that you had Queens and were killing his units with Spawn Broodling to saying that you killed 40+ Hydralisks and they kept coming. There is only one mission in the non-expansion where Zerg fights Zerg.
Yes it's better to win by a slim margin but the slimmer the margin the less likely the win
I think I see what you mean here. You want it slim, but not too slim, and damn any game that doesn't get it perfect.
If you're spending hours on your replies you need to learn to type with more than one finger.
A little uncalled for, this. Also, I said the argument, not the replies.
No. I killed 40 Hydralisks at least, after all the resources were exhausted and after he had stopped attacking or even leaving his base but he kept building them so obviously the AI was cheating.
Okay, one more time. Let's try a different method to disprove cheating. Are you aware of the end-game statistics screen. If yes, continue. If not, go find it. Do you see the tabs at the top of the graph? If yes, click on the one labelled "Resources." Once you have done that, look carefully at the stats there. It shows exactly how much was mined, both of minerals and gas, for the entire scenario. It also shows the total amount spent by all parties, even if said parties did not have resources to being with. The "Amount Spent" column will never exceed the combined total of both "Mined" columns.
Finally, if you still fail to accept that, think of why the computer would have run out of resources if all it was doing was replenishing to a base amount. I think the issue here is that you think the computer plays the same way you do, by spending a lot of resources to build large attack forces. Not the case. Secondly, think of how many resource areas the computer players controlled at the beginning of the game. This is especially important if more than one computer player is present. If so, would the player you go after second have more resources left by virtue of not having to build units? I would think so.
EDIT: Before you say there aren't that many resources on the map, check said map in the editor, and add up total resources. Then give it a leeway of ~10k each, because they have to start with something, and they are supposed to have an advantage.
-
Please enlighten me as to the content of this mission. You go from saying that you had Queens and were killing his units with Spawn Broodling to saying that you killed 40+ Hydralisks and they kept coming. There is only one mission in the non-expansion where Zerg fights Zerg.
Dude, I don't know what mission it was. It was probably the expansion and I played it more than a year ago.
Anyway. Why don't you and I both stop wasting our time on this debate and do something more productive? :nod: